to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
This cleans up the duplication we have with both intrinsic isel patterns and vselect isel patterns. This should also allow the intrinsics to get SimplifyDemandedBits support for the condition.
I've switched the canonical pattern in isel to use the X86ISD::BLENDV node instead of VSELECT. Since it always seemed weird to move from BLENDV with its relaxed rules on condition bits to VSELECT which has strict rules about all bits of the condition element being the same. Its more correct to go from VSELECT to BLENDV.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56771
llvm-svn: 351380
That's really what it is. If we didn't use intrinsics for BLENDVPS/BLENDVPD/PBLENDVB all the way to isel, this is the node we would use.
llvm-svn: 351278
Doing this late so we will prefer to fold the AND into a masked comparison first. That can be better for the live range of the mask register.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56246
llvm-svn: 350374
INC/DEC are pretty much the same as ADD/SUB except that they don't update the C flag.
This patch removes the special nodes and just pattern matches from ADD/SUB during isel if the C flag isn't being used.
I had to avoid selecting DEC is the result isn't used. This will become a SUB immediate which will turned into a CMP later by optimizeCompareInstr. This lead to the one test change where we use a CMP instead of a DEC for an overflow intrinsic since we only checked the flag.
This also exposed a hole in our RMW flag matching use of hasNoCarryFlagUses. Our root node for the match is a store and there's no guarantee that all the flag users have been selected yet. So hasNoCarryFlagUses needs to check copyToReg and machine opcodes, but it also needs to check for the pre-match SETCC, SETCC_CARRY, BRCOND, and CMOV opcodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55975
llvm-svn: 350245
All of these use custom isel so we can pretty easily detect the differences in the custom code in X86ISelDAGToDAG. The ISD opcodes just need to express the desired semantics not the details of how they would be selected by isel. So unifying them lets us remove the special casing from lowering.
llvm-svn: 350206
Remove the TESTmr isel patterns and add another postprocessing combine for TESTrr+ANDrm->TESTmr. We already have a postprocessing combine for TESTrr+ANDrr->TESTrr. With this we can give ANDN a chance to match first. And clean it up during post processing if we ended up with just a regular AND.
This is another step towards my plan to gut EmitTest and do more flag handling during isel matching or by using optimizeCompare.
llvm-svn: 350038
This fixes the patterns that have or/and as a root. 'and' is handled differently since thy usually have a CMP wrapped around them.
I had to look for uses of the CF flag because all these nodes have non-standard CF flag behavior. A real or/xor would always clear CF. In practice we shouldn't be using the CF flag from these nodes as far as I know.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55813
llvm-svn: 349962
This shortens the switches in X86ISelDAGToDAG.cpp to only need to check condition code instead of a list of opcodes.
This also fixes a bug where the memory forms of SETcc were missing from hasNoCarryFlagUses.
llvm-svn: 349868
The (cmp (and X, Y) 0) pattern is greedy and ends up forming a TESTrr and consuming the and when it might be better to use one of the BMI/TBM like BLSR or BLSI.
This patch moves removes the pattern from isel and adds a post processing check to combine TESTrr+ANDrr into just a TESTrr. With this patch we are able to select the BMI/TBM instructions, but we'll also emit a TESTrr when the result is compared to 0. In many cases the peephole pass will be able to use optimizeCompareInstr to remove the TEST, but its probably not perfect.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55870
llvm-svn: 349661
The only caller of this turns CMP with 0 into TEST. CMP with 0 and TEST both set OF to 0 so we should have no issues with instructions that only use OF.
Though I don't think there's any reason we would read just OF after a compare with 0 anyway. So this probably isn't an observable change.
llvm-svn: 349223
hasNoCarryFlagUses hardcoded that the flag result is 1 and used that to filter which uses were of interest. hasNoSignedComparisonUses just assumes the only result is flags and checks whether any user of the node is a CopyToReg instruction.
After this patch we now do a result number check in both and rely on the caller to provide the result number.
This shouldn't change behavior it was just an odd difference between the two functions that I noticed.
llvm-svn: 349222
MULX has somewhat improved register allocation constraints compared to the legacy MUL instruction. Both output registers are encoded instead of fixed to EAX/EDX, but EDX is used as input. It also doesn't touch flags. Unfortunately, the encoding is longer.
Prefering it whenever BMI2 is enabled is probably not optimal. Choosing it should somehow be a function of register allocation constraints like converting adds to three address. gcc and icc definitely don't pick MULX by default. Not sure what if any rules they have for using it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55565
llvm-svn: 348975
Summary:
As discussed in previous review, and noted in the FIXME, if `X` is actually an `lshr Y, Z` (logical!),
we can fold the `Z` into 'control`, and let the `BEXTR` do this too.
We could just insert those 8 bits of shift amount into control,
but it is better to instead zero-extend them, and 'or' them in place.
We can only do this for `lshr`, not `ashr`, because we do not know that the mask cover only the bits of `Y`,
and not any of the sign-extended bits.
The obvious question is, is this actually legal to do?
I believe it is. Relevant quotes, from `Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual`, `BEXTR — Bit Field Extract`:
* `Bit 7:0 of the second source operand specifies the starting bit position of bit extraction.`
* `A START value exceeding the operand size will not extract any bits from the second source operand.`
* `Only bit positions up to (OperandSize -1) of the first source operand are extracted.`
* `All higher order bits in the destination operand (starting at bit position LENGTH) are zeroed.`
* `The destination register is cleared if no bits are extracted.`
FIXME: if we can do this, i wonder if we should prefer `BEXTR` over `BZHI` in such cases.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, andreadb
Reviewed By: RKSimon, craig.topper, andreadb
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54095
llvm-svn: 347048
Summary:
The final pattern.
There is no test changes:
* We are looking for the pattern with one-use of it's mask,
* If the mask is one-use, D48768 will unfold it into pattern d.
* Thus, the tests have extra-use on the mask.
* Thus, only the BMI2 BZHI can be tested, and it already worked.
* So there is no BMI1 test coverage, we just assume it works since it uses the same codepath.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53575
llvm-svn: 345584
This patch brings back the MOV64r0 pseudo instruction for zeroing a 64-bit register. This replaces the SUBREG_TO_REG MOV32r0 sequence we use today. Post register allocation we will rewrite the MOV64r0 to a 32-bit xor with an implicit def of the 64-bit register similar to what we do for the various XMM/YMM/ZMM zeroing pseudos.
My main motivation is to enable the spill optimization in foldMemoryOperandImpl. As we were seeing some code that repeatedly did "xor eax, eax; store eax;" to spill several registers with a new xor for each store. With this optimization enabled we get a store of a 0 immediate instead of an xor. Though I admit the ideal solution would be one xor where there are multiple spills. I don't believe we have a test case that shows this optimization in here. I'll see if I can try to reduce one from the code were looking at.
There's definitely some other machine CSE(and maybe other passes) behavior changes exposed by this patch. So it seems like there might be some other deficiencies in SUBREG_TO_REG handling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52757
llvm-svn: 345165
This initially landed in rL345014, but was reverted in rL345017
due to sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast buildbot failure in
check-lld (ELF/relocatable-versioned.s) test.
While i'm not yet quite sure what is the problem, one obvious
thing here is that extra truncation roundtrip.
Maybe that's it? If not, will re-revert.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53521
llvm-svn: 345027
Summary:
Continuation of D52348.
We also get the `c) x & (-1 >> (32 - y))` pattern here, because of the D48768.
I will add extra-uses into those tests and follow-up with a patch to handle those patterns too.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53521
llvm-svn: 345014
I've included a fix to DAGCombiner::ForwardStoreValueToDirectLoad that I believe will prevent the previous miscompile.
Original commit message:
Theoretically this was done to simplify the amount of isel patterns that were needed. But it also meant a substantial number of our isel patterns have to match an explicit bitcast. By making the vXi32/vXi16/vXi8 types legal for loads, DAG combiner should be able to change the load type to rem
I had to add some additional plain load instruction patterns and a few other special cases, but overall the isel table has reduced in size by ~12000 bytes. So it looks like this promotion was hurting us more than helping.
I still have one crash in vector-trunc.ll that I'm hoping @RKSimon can help with. It seems to relate to using getTargetConstantFromNode on a load that was shrunk due to an extract_subvector combine after the constant pool entry was created. So we end up decoding more mask elements than the lo
I'm hoping this patch will simplify the number of patterns needed to remove the and/or/xor promotion.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53306
llvm-svn: 344965
Summary:
As discussed in D52304 / IRC, we now have pattern matching for
'bit extract' in two places - tablegen and `X86DAGToDAGISel`.
There are 4 patterns.
And we will have a problem with `x & (-1 >> (32 - y))` pattern.
* If the mask is one-use, then it is always unfolded into `x << (32 - y) >> (32 - y)` first.
Thus, the existing test coverage is already broken.
* If it is not one-use, then it is not unfolded, and is matched as BZHI.
* If it is not one-use, we will not match it as BEXTR. And if it is one-use, it will have been unfolded already.
So we will either not handle that pattern for BEXTR, or not have test coverage for it.
This is bad.
As discussed with @craig.topper, let's unify this matching, and do everything in `X86DAGToDAGISel`.
Then we will not have code duplication, and will have proper test coverage.
This indeed does not affect any tests, and this is great.
It means that for these two patterns, the `X86DAGToDAGISel` is identical to the tablegen version.
Please review carefully, i'm not fully sure about that intrinsic change, and introduction of the new `X86ISD` opcode.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Subscribers: llvm-commits, craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53164
llvm-svn: 344904
Summary:
Trivial continuation of D52304.
While this pattern is not canonical, we do select it in the BZHI case,
so this should not be any different.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52348
llvm-svn: 344902
Summary:
Theoretically this was done to simplify the amount of isel patterns that were needed. But it also meant a substantial number of our isel patterns have to match an explicit bitcast. By making the vXi32/vXi16/vXi8 types legal for loads, DAG combiner should be able to change the load type to remove the bitcast.
I had to add some additional plain load instruction patterns and a few other special cases, but overall the isel table has reduced in size by ~12000 bytes. So it looks like this promotion was hurting us more than helping.
I still have one crash in vector-trunc.ll that I'm hoping @RKSimon can help with. It seems to relate to using getTargetConstantFromNode on a load that was shrunk due to an extract_subvector combine after the constant pool entry was created. So we end up decoding more mask elements than the load size.
I'm hoping this patch will simplify the number of patterns needed to remove the and/or/xor promotion.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53306
llvm-svn: 344877
Summary:
These nodes exist to overcome an isel problem where we can generate a zero extend of an AH register followed by an extract subreg, and another zero extend. The first zero extend exists to avoid a partial register update copying the AH register into the low 8-bits. The second zero extend exists if the user wanted the remainder zero extended.
To make this work we had a DAG combine to morph the DIVREM opcode to a special opcode that included the extend. But then we had to add the new node to computeKnownBits and computeNumSignBits to process the extension portion.
This patch instead removes all of that and adds a late peephole to detect the two extends.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53449
llvm-svn: 344874
There is no guarantee the root is at the end if isel created any nodes without morphing them. This includes the nodes created by manual isel from C++ code in X86ISelDAGToDAG.
This is similar to r333415 from PowerPC which is where I originally stole the peephole loop from.
I don't have a test case, but without this a future patch doesn't work which is how I found it.
llvm-svn: 344808
Allows to disable direct TLS segment access (%fs or %gs). GCC supports
a similar flag, it can be useful in some circumstances, e.g. when a thread
context block needs to be updated directly from user space. More info
and specific use cases: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16145
There is another revision for clang as well.
Related: D53102
All X86 CodeGen tests appear to pass:
```
[46/47] Running lit suite /SourceCache/llvm-trunk-8.0/test/CodeGen
Testing Time: 23.17s
Expected Passes : 3801
Expected Failures : 15
Unsupported Tests : 8021
```
Reviewed by: Craig Topper.
Patch by nruslan (Ruslan Nikolaev).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53103
llvm-svn: 344723
Without this we match the CMP+AND to a TEST and then match the SHR separately. I'm trusting analyzeCompare to remove the TEST during the peephole pass. Otherwise we need to check the flag users to see if they only use the Z flag.
This recovers a case lost by r344270.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53310
llvm-svn: 344649
This is an alternative to D53080 since I think using a BEXTR for a shifted mask is definitely an improvement when the shl can be absorbed into addressing mode. The other cases I'm less sure about.
We already have several tricks for handling an and of a shift in address matching. This adds a new case for BEXTR.
I've moved the BEXTR matching code back to X86ISelDAGToDAG to allow it to match. I suppose alternatively we could directly emit a X86ISD::BEXTR node that isel could pattern match. But I'm trying to view BEXTR matching as an isel concern so DAG combine can see 'and' and 'shift' operations that are well understood. We did lose a couple cases from tbm_patterns.ll, but I think there are ways to recover that.
I've also put back the manual load folding code in matchBEXTRFromAnd that I removed a few months ago in r324939. This gives us some more freedom to make decisions based on the ability to fold a load. I haven't done anything with that yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53126
llvm-svn: 344270
Summary:
As discussed in D48491, we can't really do this in the TableGen,
since we need to produce *two* instructions. This only implements
one single pattern. The other 3 patterns will be in follow-ups.
I'm not sure yet if we want to also fuse shift into here
(i.e `(x >> start) & ...`)
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52304
llvm-svn: 344224
Remove tryFoldVecLoad since tryFoldLoad would call IsProfitableToFold and pick up the new check.
This saves about 5K out of ~600K on the generated isel table.
llvm-svn: 344189
Summary:
As discussed in [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38938 | PR38938 ]],
we fail to emit `BEXTR` if the mask is shifted.
We can't deal with that in `X86DAGToDAGISel` `before the address mode for the inc is selected`,
and we can't really do it in the normal DAGCombine, because we don't have generic `ISD::BitFieldExtract` node,
and if we simply turn the shifted mask into a normal mask + shift-left, it will be folded back.
So it would seem X86ISelLowering is the place to handle this.
This patch only moves the matchBEXTRFromAnd()
from X86DAGToDAGISel to X86ISelLowering.
It does not add support for the 'shifted mask' pattern.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52426
llvm-svn: 344179
This includes a fix to prevent i16 compares with i32/i64 ands from being shrunk if bit 15 of the and is set and the sign bit is used.
Original commit message:
Currently we skip looking through truncates if the sign flag is used. But that's overly restrictive.
It's safe to look through the truncate as long as we ensure one of the 3 things when we shrink. Either the MSB of the mask at the shrunken size isn't set. If the mask bit is set then either the shrunk size needs to be equal to the compare size or the sign
There are still missed opportunities to shrink a load and fold it in here. This will be fixed in a future patch.
llvm-svn: 343539
There's a subtle bug in the handling of truncate from i32/i64 to i32 without minsize.
I'll be adding more test cases and trying to find a fix.
llvm-svn: 343516
This patch adds load folding support to the test shrinking code. This was noticed missing in the review for D52669
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52699
llvm-svn: 343499
Currently we skip looking through truncates if the sign flag is used. But that's overly restrictive.
It's safe to look through the truncate as long as we ensure one of the 3 things when we shrink. Either the MSB of the mask at the shrunken size isn't set. If the mask bit is set then either the shrunk size needs to be equal to the compare size or the sign flag needs to be unused.
There are still missed opportunities to shrink a load and fold it in here. This will be fixed in a future patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52669
llvm-svn: 343498
Summary:
This function turns (X >> C1) & C2 into a BMI BEXTR or TBM BEXTRI instruction. For BMI BEXTR we have to materialize an immediate into a register to feed to the BEXTR instruction.
The BMI BEXTR instruction is 2 uops on Intel CPUs. It looks like on SKL its one port 0/6 uop and one port 1/5 uop. Despite what Agner's tables say. I know one of the uops is a regular shift uop so it would have to go through the port 0/6 shifter unit. So that's the same or worse execution wise than the shift+and which is one 0/6 uop and one 0/1/5/6 uop. The move immediate into register is an additional 0/1/5/6 uop.
For now I've limited this transform to AMD CPUs which have a single uop BEXTR. If may also might make sense if we can fold a load or if the and immediate is larger than 32-bits and can't be encoded as a sign extended 32-bit value or if LICM or CSE can hoist the move immediate and share it. But we'd need to look more carefully at that. In the regression I looked at it doesn't look load folding or large immediates were occurring so the regression isn't caused by the loss of those. So we could try to be smarter here if we find a compelling case.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, lebedev.ri, andreadb
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, andreadb, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52570
llvm-svn: 343399
Previously we only handled loads in operand 0, but nothing guarantees the load will be operand 0 for commutable operations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51768
llvm-svn: 341675
Chandler Carruth